Oral airways were introduced into the practice of anesthesia and cardiopulmonary resuscitation several decades ago for two basic purposes. First, they prevent the patient's biting down on and occlusion of a previously placed oral endotracheal tube. Second, and most important, oral airways help to provide a patent airway that allows positive pressure ventilation to be carried out by the practitioner. More recently, some oral airways have been developed to facilitate blind (not visually directed) placement of an endotracheal tube.
For most patients, mask ventilation is carried out successfully by insertion of an oral airway and by a variety of physical adjustments, such as extension of the patient's head and elevation of the patient's jaw. However, in some patients, no matter what physical adjustments are made or the particular oral airway which is inserted, mask ventilation cannot be successfully achieved. Such cases are literally life-threatening as hypoxemia and death can quickly ensue if the patient's blood is deprived of oxygen due to a lack of ventilation.
When mask ventilation (even with the use of an oral airway) cannot be carried out, there are multiple mechanisms responsible. Most significantly, soft tissue structures in the hypopharynx (the area between where conventional oral airways end and the glottis opens into the trachea) collapse inwardly and obstruct airflow. This collapse occurs from both an antero-posterior direction, as well as from the sides of the hypopharynx. Unfortunately, all oral airways which have been introduced into practice to date end bluntly well above the epiglottis (the cartilaginous structure just above the glottis or laryngeal opening) and glottis and thus place patients at risk for significant airway obstruction. Another mechanism of airway obstruction which occurs while using oral airways is the patient having large lips covering the outside opening of the oral airway with subsequent inadequate airflow through the nasal passages (due to the solid posterior wall of the airway limiting passage of air into the airway at the level of the nasopharynx).
Additionally, most known oral airways are comprised of a hard plastic material throughout their length with no variation in softness between one end of the oral airway and the opposite end. As a result, the distal end (i.e., the end which first enters the mouth and passes down into the pharynx of the patient) often bruises or otherwise damages soft mucosal surfaces of the patient during insertion or once the oral airway has been seated in place.
Representative prior art airways include Baildon, U.S. Pat. No. 4,919,126, which discloses an oral airway formed of plastic which includes an air passageway extending longitudinally through the airway. The distal end has a projecting solid anterior portion which serves as an “epiglottis elevator.” As such, the oral airway is blunt-shaped in configuration and ends well above the glottis. For this reason, the Baildon oral airway suffers from the problems discussed above in that it fails to provide any structure to prevent the collapse of soft tissue structures in the hypopharynx.
Berman, U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,054,135 and 4,067,331, relate to an intubating pharyngeal airway having a side access for passage of an endotracheal tube. The airway includes a blunt end on the anteriorly extending wall which is designed to fit into the vallecula (area between the epiglottis and tongue). Accordingly, the devices disclosed in both of Berman's patents are similar to the device of Baildon in that they can detrimentally allow soft tissue structures to invaginate inward and thereby occlude the passage of air.
Moses, U.S. Pat. No. 3,908,665, discloses an oro-pharyngeal airway wherein the outer diameter of the body portion progressively increases from the end closest to the mouth to the opposite end thereof so as to relieve any obstruction to the flow of air by the base of the tongue falling back on the posterior pharyngeal wall. However, the airway of Moses likewise suffers from the problems discussed in detail above in that the blunt-shaped end terminates well above the glottis, thereby allowing possible soft tissue obstruction to occur.
Augustine, U.S. Pat. No. 5,203,320, discloses a tracheal intubation guide which similarly seats above the glottis. Moreover, the device of Augustine functions as a guide for placing an endotracheal tube in a “blind” manner and is neither designed for nor could it possibly function to allow mask ventilation to be carried out.
In addition, for some patients it is important to use an airway device which provides a seal within the patient's airway (trachea, oro- or hypopharynx) in order to better allow positive pressure ventilation to be accomplished. These airways are referred to herein as supraglottic airways. Traditionally, this has been achieved by using an endotracheal tube passed between a patient's vocal cords. In an effort to avoid the deleterious effects of tracheal intubation (e.g., bronchospasm, dental injury and cardiovascular stimulation), the laryngeal mask airway (“LMA”) has been introduced into clinical practice. The LMA is illustrated and described in Brain, U.S. Pat. No. 4,509 5149. While providing a seal with which to administer positive pressure ventilation, there are several potential problems when using an LMA. First, the device is easily malpositioned so that ventilation is not possible, for example, by virtue of the epiglottis bending back over the glottis and thereby obstructing air flow. Second, by directly covering the glottic aperture, trauma to the glottic structures (arytenoid cartilages, vocal cords) can occur. In addition, the cost of this product (over $200) becomes a factor when limitations to reuse occur due to physical damage of the device or accidental loss. Third, as a reusable product, the hazard of cross-contamination from one patient to another cannot be completely eliminated.
Because of the above-limitations of the LMA, a cuffed oro-pharyngeal airway has been introduced into clinical practice. Greenberg, U.S. Pat. No. 5,443,063, describes such a device as an oro-pharyngeal cuff placed over a conventional oral airway. However, this device has several significant limitations which prevent it from functioning adequately. First, the airway suffers from the problems of those previously discussed in that it ends well above the glottis, thereby allowing soft tissue obstruction to impair the flow of oxygen to the lungs. Second, with the cuff placed so far proximally in the oro-pharynx, the device tends to push itself out of the patient's mouth, thereby requiring that the device be secured in place by means of a strap placed around the patient's head. Finally, the cuff is positioned so far proximally in the patient's airway that it often allows leakage of oxygen and anesthetic gases around the cuff, thereby preventing the formation of an air-tight seal. This, of course, makes positive pressure ventilation impossible in those patients.
Several oral airways, including those described in the patents to Berman and Augustine, have been introduced into clinical practice in an effort to provide a means to accomplish blind intubation of a patient's trachea with an endotracheal tube (or to facilitate fiberoptic intubation). These devices end well above the glottic opening and thus function poorly in terms of reliably directing the end of an endotracheal tube into the glottis with blind passage. As a result, the hard distal end of the endotracheal tube may be directed against the structures which surround the glottic opening (arytenoid, cuneiform and corniculate cartilages, epiglottis, aryepiglottic folds) and cause damage to these structures or their soft tissue surfaces. Further, that damage may result in hemorrhage which obscures vision if subsequent placement of the endotracheal tube by means of a fiberoptic device is attempted. Other prior art has attempted to better direct an endotracheal tube into the glottis by having walls which surround and thus engage the arytenoid cartilages or which have projections which physically enter in between those cartilages. Representative are Patil, U.S. Pat. No. 5,720,275; Krüger, U.S. Pat. No. 4,612,927; and Williams, U.S. Pat. No. 4,338,930. However, these structures have hard advancing surfaces which can likewise cause trauma.
Recently, a version of the LMA which is meant to facilitate blind intubation with an endotracheal tube has been introduced into clinical use which attempts to surmount the problems of a misguided endotracheal tube causing trauma to perilaryngeal and glottic structures. This LMA is described in Brain, U.S. Pat. No. 5,896,858. However, in addition to sharing the above discussed problems common to all LMA's, this device relies on precise positioning so that a movable flap raises an obstructing epiglottis out of the way of an advancing endotracheal tube. Because the attached flap resides within the body of the LMA it does not physically contact the epiglottis upon insertion, but rather the advancing endotracheal tube pushes the flap up against the epiglottis to move it out of the way and thus open the glottic aperture for the endotracheal tube to enter. Perfect alignment of the recessed flap with the epiglottis is thus necessary to reliably accomplish blind placement of the endotracheal tube. However, LMA's occupy a somewhat variable and inconsistent position within the hypopharynx in relation to the precise anatomic location of the glottis (due to anatomic variability among patients as well as the distensible nature of the proximal epiglottis and hypopharynx where it resides). As a result, blind intubation with an endotracheal tube with this device can also result in tissue trauma by virtue of its advancing end being misdirected.
Supraglottic airways are sometimes used in anesthetized patients undergoing surgery within the oral cavity or on the head and neck. As such, the presence of the breathing tube can be a physical impediment to the operating surgeon. Known oral airways are too rigid to allow the airway to be moved from the surgical field. Further, a version of the LMA which is made using a flexible reinforced breathing channel suffers from the limitations common to LMAs discussed above.
Another problem with known airway devices, including LMA's, is the difficultly that can be encountered in inserting the device into the mouth and pharynx of a patient. This problem can be easily understood by reference to FIG. 12 where it is seen that the transition between the oral cavity and the hypopharynx requires turning approximately 90° or more. Executing this turn with known devices can be difficult and can cause damage to the soft mucosal tissue that makes up the posterior surface of the pharynx as it is engaged by the airway device.
Pagan, U.S. Pat. No. 5,983,897, is directed to an LMA structure including a leading tip 21 which projects forwardly beyond the upper and lower cuff members of the LMA to provide a stiffer leading edge than that provided by the cuffs to help guide the mask portion into the correct location in a patient. This leading tip has several serious shortcomings. First, it is intended to be a stiff structure which increases the risk of harm to soft tissue it contacts. Furthermore, the tip is not intended to bend to follow the contours of the oral cavity, pharynx and hypopharynx as it is placed within a patient. Therefore, because it projects outwardly from the LMA structure, it effectively lengthens the LMA structure, further enhancing the difficulty in inserting the airway within a patient without harming soft tissue. Finally, while FIG. 2 of the Pagan patent shows a preformed bend in the leading tip, this bend is actually opposite the direction of the larynx as the device is inserted into the pharynx of a patient and thus does not effective guide the LMA while minimizing patient trauma.
The present invention is intended to overcome one or more of the problems discussed above.